coolgunguy wrote: »
I'm in a weird position here. On one hand, I agreed with alpha that this was a business decision by an entity who would like to avoid possible controversy, however stupid it may be. Face it, we've seen businesses boycotted for similarly stupid things in the past. Call it catering, call it pandering, the end result is ESPN is trying to make money and a very large segment of their audience is college aged and leans left.
On the other hand, cpj is also right. I won't suggest anybody should suck start a shotgun, but if somebody is so easily offended that having an announcer at a game who has a name similar to the name of a controversial figure in American history is a "trigger" for you.... you're going to want to sit down and reassess your life.
"Finding out that you have run out of toilet paper is a good example of lack of preparation, buying 10 years worth is silly"
alphasigmookie wrote: »
Both things can be true and it pretty much sums up my thoughts as well. It is a sad statement that this situation would be a problem for people, but the fact that it almost certainly would is the fact ESPN has to deal with. Sure we'd love to see them take a stand and just say "shut up, you're all being stupid", but it's easier to say when you don't have billions in advertising revenue at stake in the decision.
JerryBobCo wrote: »
My take on this is that it reflects what ESPN thinks of their viewers' intelligence.
zorba wrote: »
People DECIDE to be "offended" - or not. *shrug*
bullsi1911 wrote: »
Adults don't get offended.